United States v. Sheffield ( 2010 )

Menu:

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4876
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONNIE WAYNE SHEFFIELD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:07-cr-00769-TLW-1)
Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 2, 2010
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John W. Locklair, III, LOCKLAIR LAW FIRM, LLC, Surfside Beach,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Sheppard Parham,
Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donnie Sheffield appeals from the 120-month sentence
imposed after he was found guilty of possession of a firearm by
a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1),
924(a)(2) (2006). Sheffield’s counsel has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California,

(1967),
stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
raising whether the district court erred by enhancing
Sheffield’s sentence by applying a Sentencing Guidelines
cross-reference based on facts that were not proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. Sheffield has filed a pro se supplemental
brief, and the Government declined to file a brief. Finding no
error, we affirm.
Sheffield received sentence enhancement based on facts
that were not stipulated to or found by a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. Counsel raises the issue of whether this
violated the Sixth Amendment in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey,

, 490 (2000). We have held that the district
court’s application of sentencing enhancements based on facts
found by a preponderance of the evidence does not violate the
Sixth Amendment. See United States v. Hammond,

,
192 (4th Cir. 2002).
We have reviewed the claims Sheffield raises in his
pro supplemental brief objecting to Agent Glover’s testimony,
2
challenging a search of his home, objecting to introduction of
evidence regarding domestic violence, objecting to sentencing
enhancements, and dissatisfaction with counsel, and find them to
be without merit. In accordance with Anders, we have also
reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no
meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Sheffield’s
conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel
inform Sheffield, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Sheffield requests that a petition be filed, but counsel
believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel
may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Sheffield.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3